Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @09:36AM
from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a stunning change, Square-Enix announced today at Microsoft's E3 press conference that its next iteration in the Final Fantasy series is also coming to Xbox 360." And I just rationalized the PS3 purchase by telling myself that the next FF will require it.

I am a pretty big fan of the Final Fantasy series, but when I heard the first rumblings of Sony PS3, I decided I just wasn't going to follow. Some of the Final Fantasy styled artwork could be stunning on high-def screens so I do know what I'm missing out on. Blu-Ray just wasn't interesting to me and the platform is too expensive to be just for games. I won't buy anything Microsoft either. Too bad, but it's just a game, and there has been and will be more great games for the platform I did pick. It's not always about the pixel count.

I seem to remember Final Fantasy games for the PC that were on PS, that seemed to sell rather well. Not sure if that's related or not, but it would seem to be.

Cross platform wouldn't be such a big deal if the companies were more open about their development methods/kits/etc....if PS3 and Xbox360 and wii worked together, there would be no issues. However end result is the PS3 would run games the best due to superior hardware basically, and everyone else would cry foul. Plus all of those anticompetitive "exclusivity" contracts like EA has launched, ensuring crappy games when they're on a single system. Of course squeenix makes pretty good games and always has, though.

I get why you were modded troll but you touch an important point. The RPG community has been fragmented now. For those who delight in making a character and sharing it with your friends real or otherwise the MMORPG is sweet, sweet candy, but for those who enjoy the deep and rich story which has previously followed RPGs MMORPGs just feel hollow. I've taken quite a few steps into MMORPGs and while they are improving over time, there are just some things that have to be sacrificed for balance. There will always be a place for the single(or well developed small group)-player RPG.

No, it's not. If it were Microsoft's dollars at work, then they'd be releasing FF13 on the Xbox 360 in Japan too. But they're not.

No, this is Square Enix taking a long and hard look at the console market and realizing that the PS3, while winning in Japan, is losing everywhere else. In order to justify the cost of releasing it outside Japan, they realized that they'd have to release it for the Xbox 360, since it has over twice the install base of the PS3 in the US and Europe.

It's simply Square Enix being smart. Sony has lost to the Xbox 360 in every territory except Japan. Square Enix has done the math and they know that the cost of porting to the Xbox 360 is far less than the expected gains by effectively tripling their audience.

In the realm of mature gamers (most of whom have the disposable income to purchase all or as many of the current generation of consoles as they like), fanboy platform wars have no real place. That being said, I see both major positives and negatives about this announcement.

On the plus side, any increase in the competition of two massive corporate juggernauts can only be good for consumers, and the game being multiplatform will help it reach a wider audience and boost sales (especially overseas). In this day and age, it seems like third party exclusive titles are becoming a thing of the past, being replaced by highly subsidized exclusive bonus content (which results in more money for the developers who MAKE the games we love).

However, one advantage consoles have always had is the uniformity of hardware, allowing developers to milk as much performance as possible out of the system, and resulting in better looking titles than on comparably equipped PC hardware (but PCs, being upgradable, often quickly strip that advantage away as hardware progresses). Today, multiplatform developers for Xbox 360 and PS3 often strive for graphical parity between the versions (e.g., GTA4, Assassin's Creed). And while I have no doubt both are powerful systems in their own respects, they are also radically different hardware architectures and I can't see how developers can realistically claim to be maxing out the performance on both systems, yet still have them come out looking virtually indistinguishable.

As an owner of both systems, I was looking forward to FF XIII as an incredible showcase of just how powerful the PS3 was as a system. I'm sure it will still be a fantastic game, but I wonder if this decision won't negatively impact the final product...

I realise I am throwing myself into a pit of rabid fanboys here, but here goes.

I've played around on some of the FF games, and I can't say they've ever impressed me. I even bought on once (FF VII) and gave up playing it quite quickly because it just didn't grab me.

So where is the appeal of this series? The action is dull, the RPG elements are poorly conceived and don't make much sense. The pace is plodding. Why are these games so raved about? I just don't get it...

As much as I like my Wii, it is clear that it would never be capable to play FFXIII on it. Besides the the fact that the processors simply would not be powerful enough to provide an equivalent game experience as on the other two consoles, there is also no HD output (besides 480p).

I haven't gotten any of the new generation consoles (except a wii). I was thinking of a PS3 over a 360 because friends with 360s said they were a headache to own. Lots of failures, very noisy and occasionally even scratching disks.

Why would a PS3 be less useful than a 360 if all the games are the same and the hardware is better?

1 is an utterly tripe, stupid argument. You could probably put Linux on a good blender at this point. What the fuck does running Linux have to do with playing video games? It's virtually useless in this sense.

2, if you're worried about this, then just step out of the video game market right now. The only three companies left - and the only ones that will be left for a long time - are Microsoft (who we're aware of), Sony (rootkits, Lik-Sang, etc.), and Nintendo, who aren't AS bad, but had their own history of bullying their developers for exclusivity and intentional chip shortages when they were the top dogs in the 80s and 90s. If you want to play console video games, either way you look at it, you're dealing with the devil.

Mature gamers...I hate to tell you but mature gamers are buying the Wii. I would bet you that more and more people in their late 20s, 30's, and 40's are buying the Wii.I think you better start using the term hard core gamers.As to the news. I find it mildly interesting. It may really help Microsoft crack the Japanese market. As for me it just delays me buying a bit longer. My wife wants the PS3 for Singstar. Yes she loves Singstar. I have yet to see a game for the 360 or PS3 that I must have.So we will keep playing with our Wii, PS2, XBox, and Dreamcast for now.

So where is the appeal of this series? The action is dull, the RPG elements are poorly conceived and don't make much sense. The place is plodding. Why are these games so raved about? I just don't get it...

It basically boils down to one thing: some people have different opinions from you. Many people think that their action is exciting, the RPG elements are fascinating, and the pace is perfect. As a general rule, one of the series' largest draws is the stories; if you don't care about a game telling you a story, it's probably safe to say that you won't enjoy the series (but there are, of course, exceptions).

I also see that you specifically mentioned FF7, which I'll bet you know is the best game to mention for starting a good flame war. There are lots of people who say it's the best game ever, and there are also a lot of people who say it's the worst game ever. The series is internally incosistent with itself, and all of the games are significantly different from each other. If you didn't like 7 but are honestly interested in why the series is popular, I'd recommend you take a look at 6, 9, or 12 instead. I'd also highly recommend Tactics, although some people will say that doesn't count as part of the series because it doesn't have a number after it.

Thank god we have Japan, Europe and a few scant studios in the US (mainly Bioware) continuing to produce long, decent single-player RPGs. Personally I don't enjoy online gaming much -- need a bit of plot and character development in my games. So far, MMOs haven't really progressed in that area.

I think by virtue of them achieving an identical experience on both consoles you subject yourself to some technical compromise. It's not going to squeeze every last drop of processing power out of either system.

Still, if they're developing on a layer that runs on both platforms, it bodes well for consistency. And honestly, I'm not worried about it looking substandard on either console.

MGS4 looked amazing, but with a story like theirs, what does it matter anyway? The game turned out to be more of the same "blah blah" Koijima nonsense that newcomers to the series couldn't possibly fathom (and even kept the veterans scratching their heads). Final Fantasy's reboot per game keeps people coming back. Thirteen times, to approximate;)

I find this to be horribly off base. Historically going cross platform has meant lesser quality because you have to devote part of your development team to translating everything for the other platform... which means that CREATION of other things goes down. Instead of having another new feature, you're product is cross-platform. That sounds like lesser quality to me. Maybe more quantity but less quality.

The difference between then and now is that the big name games are going cross-platform. Games like Final Fantasy and Grand Theft Auto which are known for their quality have gone cross-platform and have and will hopefully continue to maintain their high standards of quality even despite crossing over. And notice that you nodded your head to these games going cross platform... that means they didn't start out that way and yet they are big.

personally I get the feeling you're a blizzard fan boy more than a gamer. Not to say they don't have good games but I don't see where their cross platforming has ever happened. Their most known games are PC games. Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo... all computer games.

And as for Astral's comment on WoW... he's pretty much right on that. Very large number of things to collect and do... that are all slight variations of one another. If my little brother didn't play it, I would have left it in my discard pile. It runs like a dream, no bugs and it is quite charming. Once that gets boring, though, there isn't anything left to entertain you.

Just one question: Will the 360 version be a bare bones, no-cutscenes version, or will it sport 5 discs, or more? I mean, taking MGS4 as an example, that game renders all cutscenes in-game, yet _still_ fills up a whole dual layer BD, meaning 50 GB of textures and sound (minus some GB of double content for better reading performance, I know).

Not to pee in your cheerios, but Virtua Fighter 5 (initially touted as a PS3 exclusive, too) was released with fancier graphics and online multiplayer with exceptional netcode exclusively on the 360. Basically, I can sit here and play VF5 with friends in Japan from my sofa in the US with no perceived latency all evening while PS3 users are stuck playing only people in the same room with less detail and features on their "technically superior" console.

If the game turns out to require multiple discs, I'd assume there would be an option to copy game data to the HDD, as many 360 users have 120GB drives nowadays. Microsoft, although having had hurdles with hardware problems, tends to push for a great gaming experience on the 360.

It's probably going to be detrimental to my karma to suggest we wait and see instead of just assuming anything to do with the 360 is going to crap up the game or offer a lesser experience. It's entirely likely Microsoft will try to make another example out of any former Sony exclusive franchise.

I think he may be talking out of his arse (or at least being optimistic). I've not seen any word of this from the gaming press, who I think Microsoft would be a little more likely to tell about this then random Best Buy employees.

I just cancelled my Xbox live account yesterday. I have a few friends with Xboxes, but very few games that require me to play online with them. The games that I do play online are PC games which provide FREE online gaming.

My biggest issue with Xbox live, is that it is a service that should be free. I turn on my Xbox and get blasted with ads, and offers to 'buy' games. Of course, to 'buy' the game they mean lease it to my Xbox and only my Xbox (account). There is nothing in Xbox live that I've seen that has been revolutionary that should require a subscription to run. At least not coupled with the sales aspect.

Maybe I missed something, and I'd love for there to be a reason to keep it, but I haven't found it.

(That, and any company that doesn't allow you to cancel online when you can manage every other aspect of your account online pisses me off and I almost cancelled on principle)

Corporations are groups of people. Groups of people will behave differently than individuals. Groups of people with power (which is what corporations are) will behave differently than groups of people without power.

As designed and implemented, corporations encourage groups of people to behave badly. The corporations have economic and political power not available to individuals. As culpability is spread among many people, those many people will, in general, behave worse than they would if they were solely responsible.

"Corporations," as economically and politically empowered groups of people, *do* act. And in general, they will behave in the way that is least good for society, as it is the best good for their short term.

Cutting edge graphics and good gameplay are not mutually exclusive things. This comparison is a fallacy. Nintendo went for cheap components because they knew almost no one would buy a Nintendo console if it was prices higher than their competitors, who already had the more street cred with console gamers (i.e. the Gamecube had third position last gen.).

Nintendo's strategy worked this time around because their gimmicky controller and marketing managed to interest a whole new segment of the market to consoles. however, apart from first party titles, almost all the cutting edge, innovative third party games are being developed for PS3 and 360. If you think that those games have bad gameplay just because their graphics are awesome, you are wrong.